Author
Topic: Barry Lyndon (Read 31773 times)

I FINALLY watched Barry Lyndon last night (because the midnight showing of The Shining was sold out by the time I got there). I didn't start it until 2am, but it held my attention the whole way through. That said, I think it's probably my least favorite Kubrick film...it bears all the markings of a by-the-numbers literary adaptation (strict sense of progression, lack of character progression, etc.). I'll need to see it again. The photography was absolutely stunning, however, and if they really did that all in natural light I'm really amazed. And Ryan O'Neal's performance was quite impressive as well.

Barry Lyndon may be one of the most important movies ever, and is most comparative with 2001 than any other Kubrick movie. Not in similiar story, but what it tries to achieve in scope for its subject. The great interesting thing about it is that it is easily the greatest and most accurate recount of period piece for any movie. Basically done because of the camera Kubrick invented with using an old camera with the lense of one from Nasa used in space. It gave the movie a feeling of authenticity that no computer graphic will ever come near. And the great thing is, Kubrick only made a few of these cameras and held the rights to them and is not going to allow anyone to come near them, thus making Barry Lyndon completely priceless.

My opinion of Barry Lyndon is that it is the second best Kubrick film ever made, very near to 2001.

Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick film. It was the first Kubrick film I ever saw, and it blew me away. I had never seen anything like it before.

It requires utmost patience to savor its subtle delights. It is mid-70's art for art's sake, before the 80's bombastic video-game MTV quick-cut ADD school of filmmaking took hold. You have to just sit there, be patient, and not expect Spielbergian set pieces every ten minutes. It's a great movie, but you have to get into the late 18th century pace.